FlyTheNest

Forum rules

Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.

Morning all. Apparently 'er who's not indoors right now might be back indoors on Friday...we'll see.

Quote:

Chris Cook‏Verified account @xtophercook 35m35 minutes agoMore May's speech is in Florence. Great idea - I can't think of any jokes about going to a once-major banking hub that drifted into irrelevance

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Conservative backbencher and, according to at least one survey, Tory members’ preferred next party leader, took part in an LBC phone-in earlier. He was on characteristic form. Here are the main points.

Rees-Mogg said the existence of food banks was “uplifting” because it showed how charitable people were. Asked about the huge increase in food banks in recent years, he said:

To have charitable support given by people voluntarily to support their fellow-citizens I think is rather uplifting and shows what a good, compassionate country we are.

Inevitably, the state can’t do everything, so I think that there is good within food banks.

The real reason for the rise in numbers is that people know that they are there and Labour deliberately didn’t tell them. (Politics Live, Guardian)

[The] Labour MP Vicky Foxcroft asked if it was true, as HuffPost UK’s Paul Waugh said in a tweet yesterday, that Tory MPs have been told not to vote in future opposition day debates.

Leadsom replied:

Well, I certainly think we should consider changing standing orders to suggest to honourable members that they don’t take their facts from Twitter. The honourable lady’s information is from Twitter. So it is by definition not government policy and not therefore to be relied upon.

Leadsom’s argument that, if it’s on Twitter it can’t be government policy, is a bit odd because only this morning she used her own Twitter feed to make a government announcement.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Conservative backbencher and, according to at least one survey, Tory members’ preferred next party leader, took part in an LBC phone-in earlier. He was on characteristic form. Here are the main points.

Rees-Mogg said the existence of food banks was “uplifting” because it showed how charitable people were. Asked about the huge increase in food banks in recent years, he said:

To have charitable support given by people voluntarily to support their fellow-citizens I think is rather uplifting and shows what a good, compassionate country we are.

Inevitably, the state can’t do everything, so I think that there is good within food banks.

The real reason for the rise in numbers is that people know that they are there and Labour deliberately didn’t tell them. (Politics Live, Guardian)

Fox chief executive says leaving the EU means it is more important than ever for Britain to attract investment

James Murdoch has issued a stark warning to the government not to turn its back on 21st Century Fox’s bid for Sky as the UK prepares to leave the European Union, claiming Brexit makes it more important than ever that the country attracts investment.

Murdoch said he was looking forward to going through the regulatory process on the deal if the UK “truly is open for business”. (Guardian)

I feel impelled to point out that I don't have Sky TV - Sky News is available on Freeview. Although, after today's effort, I might have to go back to giving Sky News a swerve (although, despite Kay Burley, it's often better than the BBC's offering).

Fourteen council by-elections last week, so <deep breath> here goes - it was a very eventful set of results too:

Cannock Chase DC/Staffordshire CC - two district vacancies and a county vacancy that covers the same areas here, so they are best grouped together. The first DC contest was a Labour gain from the Tories with a swing of over 7% since it was last contested on GE day in 2015. Back in the 2002 all-out elections it split 1Lab/1LD, the LibDems held their seat the following year but the Tories gained the Labour seat in 2006 and the LibDem one in 2007; however they only enjoyed their "full house" until the next election in 2010 when Labour gained a seat back - they won the other in 2011 and confirmed their then dominance in 2014 only for the Tories to benefit from their strong national performance here a year later. Labour got a double figure increase into the low 40s whilst the Tories dropped modestly - Greens also advanced markedly to over 10%. The localist Chase Independents were little changed on 5%, whilst UKIP (who beat the Tories into third in their peak year of 2014) crashed to little more than 3%. The other district seat had a not dissimilar history until recent years - splitting 1Tory/1Lab in 2002 then Labour wins in 2003, 2007, 2011 and 2012 countered by Tory triumphs in 2004, 2008 and 2015 - but then almost from nowhere the Greens (a poor 4th and last two years ago) stormed through to win here last May. They repeated that now, advancing further to almost half the vote though there was a small swing to the second placed Tories who increased a bit more to just shy of 30%. Labour dropped a bit further and are some way from challenging here now, whilst again UKIP (a good third in 2015) fell by 10 points to less than 5%. This particular result helps explain Labour's undoubted disappointment in the county division where only a modest swing to them since this May meant the Tories narrowly held a division where they won both seats then, as they did in 2009 whilst Labour scooped both in 2005 and 2013. The actual result saw the Greens build on their good showing earlier this year, and on nearly 29% they now trail both "main" parties by just a few points. UKIP came second here in both 2009 and 2013 (actually coming closer to getting a seat on the former occasion, though that is partly due to fielding just one candidate then rather than two 4 years later) but crashed as in most cases in this round and their support halved again now to less than 4%. LibDems just edged out the Chase Indies to the wooden spoon, but the two polled less than the hapless Kipper between them.

Peterborough - Tory hold in a ward that elected a full slate of three for the blue team in post boundary change elections last year, which combined a safe Tory ward with one that had elected Independents in recent years. The absence of any Indy this time (after coming a good third a year ago) helps explain their comfortable win this time as they increased by some 20 points to over half the vote. Labour saw a similar increase to move from 4th to runner up this time, ahead of UKIP who had come second in 2016 - they were again significantly down though 14% is a very decent score for them these days. Greens also declining sharply, but still ahead of the LibDems who got less than 2% after not bothering before.

Fenland DC - not far away from the above but a rather better LibDem performance as they took a seat from the Tories on a swing of around 18% to return to a ward where they took both seats in 2007 after it split 1LD/1Con in 2003. Four years later however the Tories took both and by 2015 they looked very comfortable with over half the vote, but they dropped by over 20 points now whilst the winning LibDem finished just shy of 40 per cent. Indeed the Tories were not far off being beaten by Labour, who advanced by 8 points to 29% and are well ahead of their original showing here in 2011.

Suffolk CC - Labour hold of a safe division that has always voted for them (though Tories have managed to win the similar and identically named Ipswich DC ward on a couple of occasions) though it was close in 2009. This year was a much better result for Labour then then despite their generally poor showing, but they still managed to improve on it further with a swing of over 6% and getting over 60% of the vote whilst the Tories dropped to less than a quarter. LibDems double to 10%, leapfrogging the Greens who declined.

Babergh DC - Labour gain from the Tories by a single vote in a ward where they have not triumphed this century - in 2003 and 2007 two LibDems were returned here, before the Tories won a seat in 2011 and then both in 2015. By that time, however, Labour had become competitive finishing just 5 votes behind the second placed Tory (who trailed their running mate by a significant margin) Labour's candidate had achieved brief wider notoriety by being caught up in last year's anti-semitism business and this may explain why it was so close - but on "average" vote shares Labour still achieved a modest but real swing from last year. LibDems the only other candidate this time (Greens, UKIP and Indies all present two years ago) and that explains how they got a small increase as well as double figure gains for the big two, but at under 15% they are still some way off former glories here.

Colchester DC - Tory gain from LibDem in a ward which split 2LD/1Con in last year's post boundary change elections where this division was unchanged - though the leading LibDem ran massively ahead of their running mates which distorts the overall figures slightly this was still clearly a setback for the yellow team who have won here more often than not since their first triumph in 2006. This time round they dropped into third as not just the Tories advanced by double figures (into the high 30s) but so did Labour who managed to win a seat back here in 2003 (after Tories had taken all three places in 2002's previous all-out elections - their other wins came in 2004, 2007, 2011 and 2015) but had totally fallen out of contention subsequently and came 5th behind UKIP and Independents only last year. This time round the Indy was first of the also rans but with only 3%, still ahead of UKIP who had their now customary double figure collapse. Greens last with under 2%, also well down on previously.

Croydon - Labour hold with a bit under 60%, an increase of 6 points since 2014. Whilst this is a safe Labour ward which easily returned three reds both then and in 2010, Tories gained 2 of the three seats in 2006 and topped the poll. Those days look very distant now, as the Tories dropped further and weren't that far from being caught by the LibDems who doubled their share to nearly 14% and rose from 5th and last three years ago, overtaking both the Greens (down slightly) and UKIP who dropped from 11% last time to less than 3% now.

Lewes DC - Green gain from Tory in a ward whose past political history is also interesting; it split 1Ind/1Con/1LD in 2003 before the LibDems took the Indy seat in a 2006 byelection - the resulting 2LD/1Con balance was confirmed in 2007 and 2011 before the Tories gained a seat in 2015. Greens have slowly been on the rise however (they finished second in one of the E Sussex CC divisions covering this ward in May) and now a 20 point increase to 38% got them an excellent win. Tories still slightly up and improved their position from 2015 vis a vis the LibDems as the latter fell by 5 points into a clear third, Labour also down but improving by a place in the rankings as UKIP had yet another double figure drop to less than 2%.

Herefordshire - not even a crumb of comfort for the Tories here, however, as they lost this ward to an Independent on a huge swing. This unitary authority had boundary changes for the most recent 2015 elections which involved a move to entirely single member wards, however this division was only slightly changed from before and in its previous incarnation voted Indy in 2003 and 2007 before the Tories took over in 2011. So in a way this was a "return to the old order" - but given that the Tories took two thirds of the vote here two years ago still an impressive performance for the first of two Independent candidates standing to take over 40% and beat the Tory by not far off 2 to 1. LibDems were once competitive here (though they never actually won) and their absence this time maybe helped the Indie cause, the second of them taking a fairly respectable 14%. Greens 4th with 10% - down from last time when they just beat the then Independent into 3rd, and just ahead of Labour now in their first appearance in these parts for some time.

Lancaster DC - Labour hold in a safe ward which has returned three councillors for them without fail since 2003 with the sole exception of 2011 when an ex-Labour Independent was elected, who has since returned to the fold. Even so, the field was more fragmented than usual last time and an increase of over 25 points since then to over 60% is undeniably impressive. UKIP, Greens and Independents stood last time and all did decently but none were to be seen now - which also meant a more modest Tory increase. LibDems did stand now for the first time since the turn of the millennium, but got just 4% for their pains.

North Lanarkshire - Labour gain from Tory, though the latter's win this May was a bit of a freak and the newly elected councillor was so shocked to win that he declined to take up his seat. This does fit in with a rather interesting electoral history, though - there were boundary changes this year but the previous similar division split 1Lab/1Nat/1Indy in both 2007 and 2011; this time round an extra seat was added and Labour effectively "took" it whilst the Tory gained at the Independent's expense. This time round Labour only got a small increase in first preferences to 38%, but it was quite enough given the fragmented state of the opposition - second place was taken by the "British Union and Sovereignty Party", a locally based "unionist" outfit who doubled their share since earlier this year. SNP dropped by 8 points and are now clearly third, whilst the 4th placed Tories also dropped off slightly. The former Independent councillor seems to have had their day as their share halved to 5%, Greens and UKIP brought up the rear.

Glasgow - Labour hold, though that does not tell the whole story as is often the case in Scottish by-elections. Back in May the SNP topped the poll in every single Glasgow division as they ended decades of Labour rule, though they fell short of a majority themselves and were hoping a gain here would get them nearer that elusive goal. Though at least this one was close and it split 2Nat/2Lab as it had done in 2012 (in 2007, Solidarity had taken a seat before losing it to the SNP five years later) before the SNP held their seat in a landslide in the summer of 2015 during what looks increasingly like, in retrospect, the absolute peak of their support. This time round things were rather different, a swing of 9% on first preferences saw Labour come out clearly on top with nearly half the vote. As with the other Scottish vacancy Tory support was a bit down on their May high point, Greens the first of the also-rans followed by the LibDems and finally (with just 0.2%) the distinctly "niche" Libertarian Party.

Phew!

Just three contests today, so the next review may appear slightly more promptly

Record numbers of disabled people win tribunals against Tory government to get benefit PIP

Judges ruled 14,077 people should get Personal Independence Payments (PIP) against the government's will between April and June - 65% of all cases

That's a lot of appeals and a very high rate of claimants initially wrongly assessed. So what is the government's response?

Quote:

A DWP spokeswoman said: “Only a small proportion of all decisions are overturned at appeal - just 4% of both ESA work capability assessments and PIP assessments."

Yep. A meaningless stat without context but which has a reassuringly small sounding number in it. 4% of what, exactly? If it's 4% of a very large number, that could be an awful lot of people the government are dismissing as inconsequential, couldn't it? And no knowing how many people have incorrectly been refused PIP who didn't go to appeal, of course.

Journalists should be all over this crap, not giving the government bullshit machine the last say, unchallenged, at the end of the article. This has become ubiquitous, this giving the government spokesman's hoodoo stats the final word with no attempt to provide readers with the facts and figures to unravel their true meaning. Sure the government should have right of reply, but what harm would a few facts do? 4% of what? Come on journos, we deserve to know!

---Journalists should be all over this crap, not giving the government bullshit machine the last say, unchallenged, at the end of the article. This has become ubiquitous, this giving the government spokesman's hoodoo stats the final word with no attempt to provide readers with the facts and figures to unravel their true meaning. Sure the government should have right of reply, but what harm would a few facts do? 4% of what? Come on journos, we deserve to know!

(cJA edit)

If journalists, reporters, press, the fourth estate don't challenge information, who will? Without free press, democracy diesIt's hard finding out what matters, even when the information is available I've got all kinds of data and informationNo one is an expert in everything, no one can be expected to understand the ramifications of all the information coming at us daily. It takes time and connection with others to fill us in.

Two high court judges have made separate orders calling for Bigzad to be brought back to the UK as a matter of urgency. The second states that the home secretary, Amber Rudd, is in contempt of court for breaching the first order not to remove Bigzad.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 36 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum